MN legislature schedules same-sex marriage vote for Thursday

posted at 12:01 pm on May 7, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

In November, a referendum to add the current statutory definition of marriage to the Minnesota state constitution narrowly lost, 47/53, in a presidential election featuring a large turnout for Barack Obama. The Democrats took control of the state legislature, and as expected, have worked to change the statutory definition — just as the marriage-amendment backers predicted if the referendum failed. The state House has scheduled a vote for Thursday, and the state Senate is preparing their own vote:

The Minnesota House has scheduled a Thursday debate and floor vote on the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

House Speaker Paul Thissen has said that the bill would not be brought to a vote unless they had secured the 68 votes that would be needed to pass the legislation. A number of DFL lawmakers representing districts that supported last fall’s proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage have voiced their support of the marriage equality bill in recent weeks.

Also on Tuesday, a Minnesota Senate committee is giving a last look at the bill to legalize gay marriage before full House and Senate votes.

The Senate Finance Committee is planning to review the gay marriage bill’s fiscal impact on Tuesday morning. A fiscal analysis finds it would add small costs to state employee health insurance costs but also generate revenue from an expected spike in marriage licenses.

Er, what? A marriage license costs $115, and is a one-time fee. If applicants supply proof of pre-marital counseling, that fee drops to $40. The “small costs” of adding hundreds of people to public-sector health insurance plans will cost a lot more than $115, and it will cost that every single year. Regardless of whether one supports redefining marriage in this state, this fiscal analysis is absurd.

Besides, the cost isn’t the issue for either side. Politicians and voters have strong opinions on this, but it’s not because it’s going to cost the state oodles of money, which it won’t. It’s because both sides believe that this is an issue of liberty and cultural values, and the question will be which of the latter prevails, and what liberty remains for the other side.

In that vein, be sure to watch the video presentation from the Star Tribune by the opponents of this bill (which is not embeddable). The legislation contains language that supposedly protects religious institutions from being forced to facilitate same-sex weddings, but that doesn’t cover private-sector businesses who may not want to participate in them because of their own religious beliefs. My friend Theresa Collett explains this near the end of the video, as she has from the earliest days of the marriage amendment debate.

Don’t count on the religious protection to last, either. As I wrote at the time of the election, the close relationship between the state and religious institutions on weddings will provoke all sorts of lawsuits designed to force those institutions out of the marriage business entirely:

Third — and to my mind, the most compelling, especially of late — allowing for the possibility of redefining marriage leaves churches vulnerable to government intrusions at the altar. Right now, churches act as agents of the state in conducting weddings. For those who think that a change in definition would not inevitably lead to mandates on churches to “not discriminate” in conducting ceremonies for those relationships which violate their religious doctrines hasn’t been paying attention to the HHS mandate. In that case, the federal government will force religious organizations (schools, charities, health-care providers) to violate their doctrines by facilitating access to contraception and sterilization, and that’s without the added lever of acting in stead of the state, as churches do when officiating at weddings. Instead of leaving marriage to the churches, a change in definition will give the state a powerful way to either force churches to perform weddings that violate their belief systems or stop performing them altogether.

In my opinion, the state has zero legitimate interest in consensual sexual relationships between non-consanguinary adults — except for the procreative potential of heterosexual relationships. Otherwise, the proper action of government to all other consensual, non-consanguinary sexual relationships should be respect for private choices, not public validation. The recognition of marriage was never a “love license,” but a forward-looking institution designed to provide legal protection for families, especially oriented to children produced explicitly from those unions. Everything else should be a matter of contract law, which is sufficient to deal with all other issues.

Still, the licensing and recognition of marriages is a government policy, set by the people of the state, and the legislature is the legitimate representative institution for setting government policy (as opposed to the judiciary). Government at all levels passes unworkable and poorly-advised policies; it’s part of the messy process of self-government. If Minnesotans decide the only legitimacy of adult relationships comes from government licensing of them, well, they’ll have to deal with the consequences of that decision … and they won’t be long in coming.

Update: Edited the penultimate paragraph after posting.

Update: Because this argument arose in the comments and in e-mail, I want to address it directly. This argument does not state that only marriages that produce children are legitimate marriages. The only relationships that can of themselves produce children are those which are heterosexual in nature, which means that the marriage form is defined by law as one man and one woman. Within that form, men and women can marry each other whether they intend to have children or not (or are capable of doing so or not), because that is the defined form of marriage that receives government recognition.

The form is established by the state interest in the relationship, but that doesn’t require procreation for legitimacy. Once the form is established, it should be open to all who wish to enter into the specific relationship type for which government provides that recognition.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

Also, it’s a presumption that because you’re gay you think marriage applies to you. The gay community has long viewed marriage as a bourgeois institution that had nothing to do with them (and was even harmful to them).

gwelf on May 7, 2013 at 1:23 PM

I am more than familiar with the gay rights movement’s previous ambivalence towards marriage. . I am emotionally totally divested from same-sex marriage as a civil rights cause .I just genuinely enjoy how it makes social conservatives tie themselves in knots.

You did not choose to *be* gay. You chose to be *honest* about your same-sex desires and your lack of sexual desire for a woman. I don’t see how you don’t understand that distinction. I never thought you were actually mentally slow before….

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:15 PM

LOL. I expected that, because I just struck right at the core of your problem: you desperately need to be able to dodge the consequences of your choices.

I made an informed and responsible choice. You’re just a pervert who screams and cries and won’t take responsibility for what he does.

I knew full well that this meant marriage wasn’t an option. And I am perfectly OK with that; it respects my beliefs, my faiths, and my desire that opposite-sex marriages that produce children be held in the highest esteem in our society.

You are terrified of this because it destroys and makes obvious your selfish, narcissistic little rants. You stupidly admitted above that you don’t care about marriage benefits and that you don’t think marriage adds any value. That makes it clear that you DON’T really care about marriage; you only care about pissing all over others.

Since you’ve acknowledged you are a bigot who doesn’t care about marriage and only cares about hurting others, people may treat you accordingly. Indeed, you SHOULD be discriminated against and called a racist, bigot, and pedophile, because that’s what your character and words show you to be.

When did anyone say the civil union doesn’t discriminate. They also discriminate against children. The point is that there’s no compelling state interest in prevent two consenting adults from getting married. In the case of your friend’s tragic situation, I certainly don’t know why the state needs to ratify that he and his wife have agreed he can have sex with someone else on the side, but I also don’t particularly care if polygamy were made legal or not. Its just not the movement I’m putting any effort behind (for that matter, neither is same-sex marriage because, as gwelf pointed out, it is an inherently anti-feminist institution).

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:23 PM

And what are “children”? If a fifteen year old is “adult” enough to get the morning-after pill on her own, she’s “adult” enough to get married on her own too. Besides, aren’t nine year old girls hitting puberty nowadays (down Mohammed, down boy) because of the horrible American diet?

I am more than familiar with the gay rights movement’s previous ambivalence towards marriage. . I am emotionally totally divested from same-sex marriage as a civil rights cause .I just genuinely enjoy how it makes social conservatives tie themselves in knots.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Yep, just like a toddler. I don’t really want that toy, but if you want it then I am going to cry for it..

I am more than familiar with the gay rights movement’s previous ambivalence towards marriage. . I am emotionally totally divested from same-sex marriage as a civil rights cause .I just genuinely enjoy how it makes social conservatives tie themselves in knots.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Bingo!

And that is the whole point. You acknowledge that gay-sex marriage has no social value, that gay-sex marriage supporters see no civil rights issue, and only care about antireligious bigotry and hate.

You have just proven ZachV a liar. You have just shown that ZachV’s family is lying. And you have just made it obvious that your Obama Party is lying and pushing gay-sex marriage out of nothing more than antireligious and anti-conservative bigotry and hate.

We win, you lose. Anyone who supports gay-sex marriage, by your own admission, is a liar, a phony, and a bigot.

And that is the whole point. You acknowledge that gay-sex marriage has no social value, that gay-sex marriage supporters see no civil rights issue, and only care about antireligious bigotry and hate.

You have just proven ZachV a liar. You have just shown that ZachV’s family is lying. And you have just made it obvious that your Obama Party is lying and pushing gay-sex marriage out of nothing more than antireligious and anti-conservative bigotry and hate.

We win, you lose. Anyone who supports gay-sex marriage, by your own admission, is a liar, a phony, and a bigot.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Heh. I don’t really want to read the first page with ZachV’s comments but your conclusion is not surprising. I’ll take your word for it.

Hey libfreeordie, since you admit that you openly engage in acts of discrimination against Christians and people of religious beliefs, doesn’t that mean that your institution is in violation of the Civil Rights Act for continuing to employ you?

Would you also state that your institution is civilly negligent for allowing someone who openly advocates hatred for and deliberate discrimination against people based on their religious faith to teach?

When did anyone say the civil union doesn’t discriminate. They also discriminate against children. The point is that there’s no compelling state interest in prevent two consenting adults from getting married. In the case of your friend’s tragic situation, I certainly don’t know why the state needs to ratify that he and his wife have agreed he can have sex with someone else on the side, but I also don’t particularly care if polygamy were made legal or not. Its just not the movement I’m putting any effort behind (for that matter, neither is same-sex marriage because, as gwelf pointed out, it is an inherently anti-feminist institution).

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:23 PM

The state doesn’t prevent any consenting adults from getting married. It just doesn’t recognize all of them.

I am more than familiar with the gay rights movement’s previous ambivalence towards marriage. . I am emotionally totally divested from same-sex marriage as a civil rights cause .I just genuinely enjoy how it makes social conservatives tie themselves in knots.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM

So do you like it when the pro SSM side equates gay marriage with slavery and Jim Crow laws and the other racial civil rights struggles in America?

I can answer this– women have been know to have children at the age of 55. If she isn’t childbearing anymore, than anything they wish to do can be done in the form of private contracts.

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM

I’m going to disagree in the sense that we don’t want the government getting (literally) into that woman’s knickers to know if she’s still capable of conceiving or not. It’s enough that the marrying couple falls into the most natural class to define the law.

You don’t understand that because you simply don’t want to take responsibility for your behavior.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Exactly. I applaud you for being intellectually honest and forthright, ND30. (While not approving of your choice, as you understand.)

Unfortunately, the gay and lesbian community encourages the sort of bigoted, childish behavior that we see from libfreeordie and ZachV far more than it does my simple, “Sure, I chose. What of it?” point of view.

My illumination came when I lived in Germany and got to know the Oma of one of my friends there very well. She told me one day that, had I been around under the Third Reich, because of my features and family bloodline, I would have been pressed into the SS as essentially a breeding stud. She knew what was coming up in my mind next, because she then looked at me and said, “Had they found out, they not only would have killed you, but they would have executed your family and the rest of your relatives as impure.”

To save my family, I would have chosen to marry and have sex with women. That is a reality. But in this day and age, that’s not the choice with which I’m faced, and I chose the path that I did.

Sooooo, putting a Christmas tree or a cross in the public square is somehow an issue of scandal and violation of “separation of church and state” , but forcing religious institutions and private businesses to go against their beliefs is not.

For other’s info, an Oma is a grandmother. Good memories of my landlord’s parents in Eisingen, who became my son’s Oma and Opa, despite not speaking a lick of English. (They lived downstairs in the house we rented.) :)

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Heck, I even try to respect LFoD’s opinion. It is really, really hard, though, when there isn’t any honesty or integrity behind it, usually.

When did anyone say the civil union doesn’t discriminate. They also discriminate against children. The point is that there’s no compelling state interest in prevent two consenting adults from getting married. In the case of your friend’s tragic situation, I certainly don’t know why the state needs to ratify that he and his wife have agreed he can have sex with someone else on the side, but I also don’t particularly care if polygamy were made legal or not. Its just not the movement I’m putting any effort behind (for that matter, neither is same-sex marriage because, as gwelf pointed out, it is an inherently anti-feminist institution).

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:23 PM

This is also a subtle admission. The feminist movement – like several movements on the left – are aimed at destroying the family and inserting the state as caregiver and the government as community.

Incidental.. Most people don’t know that they are impotent or infertile when they marry and infertility diagnoses are notoriously unreliable. Ask the number of people who have adopted and then gotten pregnant. There is a reason that people can annul their marriage due to impotence of the fraud if one partner was infertile and didn’t tell the other.

People who choose not to have kids change their minds, and always have the ability to have kids, so the state has a stake in recognizing their union in case of children. My husband and I weren’t having kids(we did 7 years into our marriage)..

“Can’t conceive” is not a choice of action on the part of the couple involved.

“Choose not to” lasts only as long as the first broken condom or skipped pill.

The reason for marriage is not necessarily to encourage procreation; it’s to acknowledge that opposite-sex couplings procreate, that those procreated require adults to take care of them, and that the adults who should be best suited for taking care of them are the ones that produce them.

Since same-sex couples will never procreate under any circumstances, and furthermore have made a deliberate choice on their part that puts them beyond procreation, there is no need for the state to encourage or support their relationships; there’s no benefit to society, and it incurs unnecessary costs.

At the end of the day it all comes down to whether or not you think being gay is a choice. Obviously a lot of people here do, and I think that informs a large part of their opinion against gay marriage. It just so happens that society is moving, rather quickly recently, to viewing being gay as not a choice, meaning most people don’t see how you can justify denying SSM. That’s why I am really not concerned with the gay marriage debate. I know the pro-SSM will inevitably win, even if it takes a little longer than a lot of people will want.

Also, I don’t understand why people here even engage with the likes of Zach and Lib. Trolls are trolls, and yall need to learn to not feed them…

I am more than familiar with the gay rights movement’s previous ambivalence towards marriage. . I am emotionally totally divested from same-sex marriage as a civil rights cause .
libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Translation: Things are already going my way so I don’t have to argue with you…

Incidental.. Most people don’t know that they are impotent or infertile when they marry and infertility diagnoses are notoriously unreliable. Ask the number of people who have adopted and then gotten pregnant. There is a reason that people can annul their marriage due to impotence of the fraud if one partner was infertile and didn’t tell the other.

People who choose not to have kids change their minds, and always have the ability to have kids, so the state has a stake in recognizing their union in case of children. My husband and I weren’t having kids(we did 7 years into our marriage)..

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Yep.
Most of the posters at HA get the understanding that governments play a legitimate, albeit limited, role by supporting traditional marriage.
Arguments like the one Dash offered only reveal that they have not worked out that necessary framework…as if they think that the role a government would have means that a marrying couple should fill out a 55-page questionnaire.
But then again, liberals never met a government program they didn’t like.

I don’t think that’s fair to say SSM adds nothing of social value to society. Gay people make families, havekids and are very much involved in helping to raise the next generation. In fact, many gay people adopt and help give a stable home to children who are otherwise unwanted.

And conversely, the liberals who think of the Constitution the way we think of the New York Times…somehow find some magical truth that the equal protection clause mandates that gays must be allowed to get “married”.

I don’t think that’s fair to say SSM adds nothing of social value to society. Gay people make families, havekids and are very much involved in helping to raise the next generation. In fact, many gay people adopt and help give a stable home to children who are otherwise unwanted.
TDSE on May 7, 2013 at 2:09 PM

True, but that also is liberals fault. First off, adoption is made entirely too expensive, time consuming and hard for people who already have children. Second, children would not be unwanted if we allowed them to be adopted earlier. States allow far too much time for biological parents to get clean or get their act together before taking away parental rights.

As for gays raising “families,” so do single mothers and fathers, so do grandmothers and grandfathers. It doesn’t mean it is the ideal situation, and if the state is going to endorse and promote something for children- it should be the ideal situation not some half-a$$ed concoction…

It just so happens that society is moving, rather quickly recently, to viewing being gay as not a choice, meaning most people don’t see how you can justify denying SSM. That’s why I am really not concerned with the gay marriage debate. I know the pro-SSM will inevitably win, even if it takes a little longer than a lot of people will want.

Also, I don’t understand why people here even engage with the likes of Zach and Lib. Trolls are trolls, and yall need to learn to not feed them…

I don’t think that’s fair to say SSM adds nothing of social value to society. Gay people make families, havekids and are very much involved in helping to raise the next generation. In fact, many gay people adopt and help give a stable home to children who are otherwise unwanted.

TDSE on May 7, 2013 at 2:09 PM

You miss the point, TDSE.

There should be no such thing as “unwanted” children. That’s a failure of parenting among opposite-sex couples, and if liberals actually cared in the least about children, they would be demanding that the parents who produce them take better care of them instead of using that as human shields for gay people.

Moreover, all the societal benefits you mention, if they are happening at all, are currently happening without marriage. There is no reason whatsoever to introduce that particular complication; plus, the obvious and real violations of religious freedom, such as the Chick-Fil-A incident, that gay-sex marriage are clearly causing damage society and make matters worse.

Gay people make families, havekids and are very much involved in helping to raise the next generation.

TDSE on May 7, 2013 at 2:09 PM

LOL
Maybe you should go read all those commenters responding to LFoD and ZachV and such. You might learn something. (And, that’s why we respond – to ensure the correct information is out there to educate those who aren’t wilfully blind.)

No, it really had nothing to do with whether or not you think going into the homosexual lifestyle is a choice.

TDSE on May 7, 2013 at 2:09 PM

SSM will destroy marriage. Many of its leading proponents know this, openly acknowledge it, say they’re lying about their rationale for supporting it and cheer the destruction of marriage that would be the end result.

Study upon study prove that children thrive best when they are brought up by their married biological parents.

Mothering and fathering are different. To deprive a child of either is to handicap the child. If SS couples care about children, then they should be busy working and contributing to strengthening marriage and enabling adoption by a man and woman married to each other.

As for gays raising “families,” so do single mothers and fathers, so do grandmothers and grandfathers. It doesn’t mean it is the ideal situation, and if the state is going to endorse and promote something for children- it should be the ideal situation not some half-a$$ed concoction…

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 2:16 PM

But I think that is the whole point. For you it is a half-a$$ed concoction, but I think it is fair to say a majority of people are not starting to see it that way.

That’s a failure of parenting among opposite-sex couples, and if liberals actually cared in the least about children, they would be demanding that the parents who produce them take better care of them instead of using that as human shields for gay people

Bingo! And it largely has to do with liberal programs that encourage women and men to be irresponsible parents. Just ask the state; they can be your babies daddy or mama..

Moreover, all the societal benefits you mention, if they are happening at all, are currently happening without marriage.
northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Exactly! Marriage automatically confers biological married parents with equal custodial rights to the children born within that marriage. Not so with gay couples. They must always go through the state no matter if they are “married” or not, because their “children” require a third party donor, and the state is required to sort out parental rights and confer rights on the non-biological parents. Marriage is not a magic bullet for gay couples like it is for heterosexual couple when it comes to parenting and children.

Anne-Claude Girard wrote this poignant appeal in her Open letter from adopted children to France. It is a moving insight into the price that children pay for the self-centered desires of adults.

Today, this same Republic is about to pass a law that would open adoption to same-sex couples. The law would eliminate the right for those who were guaranteed a mother and father before….

If we were not raised by those who conceived us, with a father and a mother who adopted us, we build our selfhood by understanding that we could have been the child of their love.

Our lineage is comparable to that of the two adoptive parents; this understanding is essential to make us who we are. I understood in becoming myself a mother, that that had been a fundamental stage of my development.

A number of professionals have explained to you how much the wound of being abandoned inspires, among adopted children, a tireless search for their origins.

How then can it even be conceived — to give an abandoned child to a same-sex couple? That is to condemn the child forever to the double doubt:

“why was I abandoned, and why do I not have a dad and a mom?”

…This fight is about those who have known the frailty of the state of abandon- ment, who are different, and who deserve to build themselves up within a home of father-mother-child.

But I think that is the whole point. For you it is a half-a$$ed concoction, but I think it is fair to say a majority of people are not starting to see it that way.

TDSE on May 7, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Why because some biased social scientist says that gay parents are better parents than heterosexuals.. Pshaw..

Answer me this: If same sex couples are as good as heterosexual couples and it is just the number that is important; then why isn’t three better than one? Why isn’t a grandmother and a mother raising a child the same as a father and a mother? Why isn’t three parents superior to two? Why are fathers necessary at all? Why are mothers?

Mothering and fathering are different. To deprive a child of either is to handicap the child. If SS couples care about children, then they should be busy working and contributing to strengthening marriage and enabling adoption by a man and woman married to each other.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Does that also apply to widowed or widowered parents who decide not to remarry? If so, doesn’t that mean the state has a compelling interest in stepping in and forcibly removing the children of such people in order to relocate them to a two-parent household?

“Breeders” is a epithet hurled at parents by some homosexuals. Ironically the reality is quite the opposite. Robert Lopez translated a column from Boulevard Voltaire in Voltaire accuses gay marriage enthusiasts of animalizing children. It was one of the best things I’ve read about children, their biological roots and identity, and why surrogate procreation depersonalizes and damages children. My daughter translated it for me.

Society has admitted, in the name of progress, that the child is a full-fledged person. Since you are the former [society], and you make yourselves out to be the defenders of the latter [the child], tell me: under what pretext do you want to allow the fabrication of a child from many detached pieces, denying children their unique interests and needs?

Children come from a father and a mother. And in spite of your vain attempts to train eternal nature, this rule always escapes your deadly and pretentious “progress.”

One shares half of one’s genetic makeup with each of one’s parents. Whether you like it or not, parents are not simple breeders of interchangeable donkeys. Parents are beginning and root, genesis and lodestar.* From the incontestable genetic relationship follows a spiritual and visceral bond. This “family resemblance” that halos the faces of a father and a son is only the physical imprint of an immortal link.

You argue that the families without “a papa and a mama” are legion: widowhood and single-parenthood are often the cause. Learn that between accepting this deprivation that presents itself to us and knowingly provoking it by causing the birth of a child outside of these benchmarks,* there is one major difference: will. While the first circumstance is inflicted, the second is selfishly caused.

You then evoke sterile couples. Know that, except in a minority of cases, the mass of heterosexuals are fertile by nature, that is not the case for the homosexual, where procreation requires systematic subterfuge and artificial resources. If sterility is a sad anomaly for the former, it is the norm without exception for the latter. Therefore understand the language of nature which is shamed and ignored: the begetting of children only comes from a heterosexual couple. If the homosexual holds to his claim of his particular orientation, why not assume that what follows is destined?

You want to put before the feet of the State that there are already families with homosexual parents and that we must let them legally acknowledge their children. But what vile creature obligated them to make those children? And secondly to pour their sniveling on the feet of the nation whose law they have knowingly ignored! When we get away with civil disobedience— such a noble thing—against the State, we do not come to beg its aid.

You retort: “Homosexuals also long to be parents, even if nature does not permit them!” In the name of that which you seem to call injustice, you wish to inflict on an innocent child still greater unjust circumstances!

Though I reprove all interference in the life of another, your madnesses have the drab and disgraceful crust of blind ideas that no one would pursue except by a desire seen under the artificial light of imagined progress.

What does TDSE stand for? Given the thread topic, is it Transvestite Democrat Slandering Evangelicals?

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM

No I think people are naturally gay, but just something is a scientific fact doesn’t mean public perception of that truth is just, if not more important. And no, it’s for my name. And seeing as I am not doing any slandering of the sort, there is no need for that :-)

SSM will destroy marriage. Many of its leading proponents know this, openly acknowledge it, say they’re lying about their rationale for supporting it and cheer the destruction of marriage that would be the end result.

Study upon study prove that children thrive best when they are brought up by their married biological parents.

Mothering and fathering are different. To deprive a child of either is to handicap the child. If SS couples care about children, then they should be busy working and contributing to strengthening marriage and enabling adoption by a man and woman married to each other.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM

I don’t think SSM will destroy marriage, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. As for the studies, multiple studies have shown quite the opposite.

Does that also apply to widowed or widowered parents who decide not to remarry? If so, doesn’t that mean the state has a compelling interest in stepping in and forcibly removing the children of such people in order to relocate them to a two-parent household?

BTW, this is what passes for social science these days(no bias here at all)..

In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents.

“There’s no doubt whatsoever from the research that children with two lesbian parents are growing up to be just as well-adjusted and successful” as children with a male and a female parent,” Stacey told LiveScience.

There is very little research on the children of gay men, so Stacey and Biblarz couldn’t draw conclusions on those families. But Stacey suspects that gay men “will be the best parents on average,” she said.</strong>

Does that also apply to widowed or widowered parents who decide not to remarry? If so, doesn’t that mean the state has a compelling interest in stepping in and forcibly removing the children of such people in order to relocate them to a two-parent household?

this comes just a few months after the “Vote No” people calmly told us rubes that it was OK to “Vote No” because it would not change anything, Gay Marriage would still be illegal and there would be no push to legalize it.

Does that also apply to widowed or widowered parents who decide not to remarry? If so, doesn’t that mean the state has a compelling interest in stepping in and forcibly removing the children of such people in order to relocate them to a two-parent household?

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Yep, you should stick to abortion threads. You are a dumba$$. No one is advocating taking away anyone’s children. There is a difference between the state ENDORSING something and criminalizing it.

And yes, children in households where a parent has died have a lot of issues. My dad died at the age of 37. I was the only adult out of my 4 siblings. If you don’t think there are issues; then you are a moron. My youngest sibling who was three grew up without a father figure. It has completely messed with how she views relationships with men.

If marriage is just the emotional bond “that matters most” to you — in the revealing words of the circuit judge who struck down California Proposition 8 — then personal tastes or a couple’s subjective preferences aside, there is no reason of principle for marriage to be pledged to permanence. Or sexually exclusive rather than “open.” Or limited to two spouses. Or oriented to family life and shaped by its demands….

But don’t take our word for it. Many prominent leaders of the campaign to redefine marriage make precisely the same point. (We provide many more examples, and full citations, in the amicus brief we filed with the Supreme Court on the harms of redefining marriage.)

University of Calgary Professor Elizabeth Brake supports “minimal marriage,” in which people distribute whichever duties they choose, among however many partners, of whatever sex.

NYU Professor Judith Stacey hopes that redefining marriage would give marriage “varied, creative, and adaptive contours …” and lead to acceptance of “small group marriages.” In the manifesto “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” 300 leading “LGBT and allied” scholars and activists call for the recognition of multiple partner relationships.

“It most certainly will do so,” she says, “and that will make marriage a far better concept than it previously has been.”

Author Michelangelo Signorile urges same-sex partners to “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” They should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”

These leading same-sex marriage advocates are correct.

Here’s a quote from page 70 of their book:

Professor Ellen Willis, another revisionist, celebrates the fact that “conferring the legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart.”

Once again there are those on the Left who know exactly what they’re doing and why, and they’re more than happy to manipulate the useful idiots who fall for their slogans and propaganda.

No, it’s not a ridiculous extrapolation, if you have any concept of how the law works. Really, you’ve just said that children who do not live in a two-parent opposite-sex household are being handicapped. As in, deprived of something fundamental, on par with adequate housing and food and education. If the state can step in and remove minor children from a situation where the caregiver is delinquent in providing one or more of those things, then it logically follows that the state also has a compelling interest in being able to remove children from a single-parent household (even if that single parent is their biological parent) and relocating them to a two-parent household.

No, it’s not a ridiculous extrapolation, if you have any concept of how the law works. Really, you’ve just said that children who do not live in a two-parent opposite-sex household are being handicapped. As in, deprived of something fundamental, on par with adequate housing and food and education. If the state can step in and remove minor children from a situation where the caregiver is delinquent in providing one or more of those things, then it logically follows that the state also has a compelling interest in being able to remove children from a single-parent household (even if that single parent is their biological parent) and relocating them to a two-parent household.

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 2:35 PM

A lot of things handicap children, but the state doesn’t take away children i.e., low income households, low educated parents. Just because children are “handicapped;” it does not translate to state intervention. Again the difference between state ENDORSEMENT and CRIMINALIZATION. Damn why do liberals always have to get the state involved in everything..

…Recent studies claiming that children raised in same-sex homes are “no different” from those raised in traditional homes are seriously flawed…

What we do know, reliably and conclusively, is that married biological moms and dads matter to children. As the brief states:

It is not simply the presence of two parents…but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.… Experts have long contended that both mothers and fathers make unique contributions to parenting.

The professors present a great deal of scholarship showing that mothering and fathering are different. The mother plays a critical role in a child’s neural development, communication, sense of security, problem solving, understanding and responding to feelings, and social ties to both friends and family.

The father’s involvement is linked to positive outcomes in education, physical health, and avoidance of juvenile delinquency. Children who “roughhouse with their fathers” learn that certain violent behavior is unacceptable. Fathers encourage exploration and discourage boys from “compensatory masculinity where they reject and denigrate all that is feminine and instead…engag[e] in domineering and violent behavior.”

Yep, you should stick to abortion threads. You are a dumba$$. No one is advocating taking away anyone’s children. There is a difference between the state ENDORSING something and criminalizing it.

And yes, children in households where a parent has died have a lot of issues. My dad died at the age of 37. I was the only adult out of my 4 siblings. If you don’t think there are issues; then you are a moron. My youngest sibling who was three grew up without a father figure. It has completely messed with how she views relationships with men.

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 2:34 PM

I offer you the same advice and the same judgment of your critical thinking and abstract reasoning skills. I know you’re not a lawyer, or even someone smart enough to kind of “get” how the law works, but let me put it candidly: don’t you think the state has a compelling interest in removing a child from a situation where they are literally, as per INC’s post, being handicapped?

but I think it is fair to say a majority of people are not starting to see it that way.

TDSE on May 7, 2013 at 2:23 PM

An awful lot of people also believe in global warming, a large number think Humpty was pushed, and a smaller subset think the moon landings were a hoax. Sorry, but rightness isn’t determined by poll.

Answer me this: If same sex couples are as good as heterosexual couples and it is just the number that is important; then why isn’t three better than one?

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 2:26 PM

I think you ask the wrong question there (especially for a conservative). The right follow on, given your premise, is “then why haven’t homosexual couples predominated, or at least been prevalent, throughout history, in successful, thriving societies?” If they are so much better (or at least as good as), then why haven’t they existed in noticeable numbers throughout history?

No I think people are naturally gay, but just something is a scientific fact doesn’t mean public perception of that truth is just, if not more important.

TDSE on May 7, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Then you need to examine the science a bit more. Not a single study has been able to give any confidence to the theory (not fact) that homosexuality is anything but nurture.

I offer you the same advice and the same judgment of your critical thinking and abstract reasoning skills. I know you’re not a lawyer, or even someone smart enough to kind of “get” how the law works, but let me put it candidly: don’t you think the state has a compelling interest in removing a child from a situation where they are literally, as per INC’s post, being handicapped?

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Actually it is your reasoning and critical thinking skills that are on “trial” here. Who the heck endorsed taking away kids who are in gay households? As I stated before, many things handicap children growing up; low income households, low educated parents. The state does not have a compelling interest in taking away kids from those parents, but it also does not have an compelling interest in ENDORSING those handicaps either.

A lot of things handicap children, but the state doesn’t take away children i.e., low income households, low educated parents. Just because children are “handicapped;” it does not translate to state intervention. Again the difference between state ENDORSEMENT and CRIMINALIZATION. Damn why do liberals always have to get the state involved in everything..

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 2:38 PM

There’s a difference between being disadavantaged and being explicitly handicapped. A disadvantaged child may not have all the best opportunities in life, but they’re not being deprived of the essentials, which is what a handicap definitionally is. If, as is being argued here, both a mother and a father are absolutely essential for the healthy development of a child, then the state has an interest in removing children from situations where that’s not the case.

I think opinion is definitely shifting to a majority for SSM. The amount of change in the past few years is staggering and denotes a shift.

TDSE, are you familiar with the game of baseball?

Are you aware that in baseball, a battery consists of one pitcher and one catcher currently on the field.

Not one shortstop and one pitcher, not one catcher and one outfielder, not two pitchers, not two catchers.

Would that people would sometimes retain the logic and reason of sports in their life choices/views.

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Um tennis doubles has two of the same people, on the same side, playing the same position, attempting to accomplish the same goal. Same with synchronized diving, or badminton or many other sports where players fulfill the same role and function on the court at the same time. Kind of weak analogy there.

Numerous studies have not shown quite the opposite. They are scientifically invalid.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 2:31 PM

I’m not sure how anybody is supposed to respond to that. Just declaring something scientifically invalid doesn’t make it so.

That’s ridiculous, and you’re playing ducks and drakes with children to justify your POV.

Children thrive best when reared by their married biological mother and father. If they do not have those, then to forcibly remove them from other biological ties to mother or father, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents would only do more harm, and they would suffer far great deprivation.

There’s a difference between being disadavantaged and being explicitly handicapped. A disadvantaged child may not have all the best opportunities in life, but they’re not being deprived of the essentials, which is what a handicap definitionally is. If, as is being argued here, both a mother and a father are absolutely essential for the healthy development of a child, then the state has an interest in removing children from situations where that’s not the case.

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 2:45 PM

You are being illogical. It has been argued and proven that both a mother and a father are essential for healthy development (see all studies that show single parent households are bad for children). Yet the state does not take away children from singe mothers.

, as is being argued here, both a mother and a father are absolutely essential for the healthy development of a child, then the state has an interest in removing children from situations where that’s not the case.

Armin Tamzarian on May 7, 2013 at 2:45 PM

So, which do you want? The state to “normalize” the relationship of a homosexual cuouple, by granting them the use of a word that has meant the same thing for thousands of years, or do you want them to take away the children which they have adopted, or biologically had, when they were in a relationship or actual marriage?

Your stawman occurs when you try to equate a heterosexual marriage to a homosexual attraction.

That’s ridiculous, and you’re playing ducks and drakes with children to justify your POV.

Children thrive best when reared by their married biological mother and father. If they do not have those, then to forcibly remove them from other biological ties to mother or father, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents would only do more harm, and they would suffer far great deprivation.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 2:49 PM

But if having both a mother and a father is utterly indispensable to the healthy development of a child, then in their absence those other things are irrelevant. Your reasoning would be as dumb as saying that although children thrive best when not being beaten by their parents, removing them from that situation would only make it worse because it would sever all of their familial ties, not just the ones to their physically abusive parents.

The Left makes up lies off the top of their head. We have to refute them, and provide validation.

INC on May 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM

You are being illogical. It has been argued and proven that both a mother and a father are essential for healthy development (see all studies that show single parent households are bad for children). Yet the state does not take away children from singe mothers.

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 2:49 PM

LMFAO!

… do neither of you remember me providing the citations and peer-reviewed studies from every single professional medical and psychiatric organization in America — from the American Medicial Association to the American Pediatric Association and to the American Psychological Association — declaring the exact opposite to be true?

I just looked through your links INC. These were all written by politically-motivated interest groups that do not have degrees in science, medicine, psychology or anything of the like.

That’s in addition to the Regnerus study, which is the prime citation in that “Social Scientists” brief, i.e. the man who thinks that his fundamentalist beliefs take precedent over empirical evidence.

Let me get the scientific peer-reviewed links together, while you think of how you can demagogue the entire scientific and medical communities as left-wing lies.

I said they thrive best. We should be concerned to give children the best chance they have.

And of course being reared by a biological mom or dad, if that’s all a child has or to any of those other relatives I mentioned would be far better than forcible removal.

It sounds like you’re walking back your original point to me. Suddenly your language has shifted from explicitly describing children who do not have both parents as handicapped to stating that children “thrive best” (whatever that means) with both parents. Children “thrive best” when they have a balanced breakfast too but not having that is a long way from being “handicapped”.

Recent studies claiming that children raised in same-sex homes are “no different” from those raised in traditional homes are seriously flawed:

[T]he vast majority of [these] studies were based on samples of fewer than 100 parents (or children), and typically representative only of well-educated, white women (parents), often with elevated incomes. These are hardly representative samples of the lesbian and gay population raising children, and therefore not a sufficient basis to make broad claims about child outcomes of same-sex parenting structures.

This faulty methodology lends itself to mistaken conclusions showing no differences between groups. However, studies using larger sample sizes and more robust methods have cast the “no difference” thesis into doubt.